Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Why do you think it's up to churches to decide how to apply theology when you continually instruct the Watchtower on what to do? Your contradictory assertions are quite perplexing.

... lol.... I am not instructing anyone what kind of theology should be applied. I just have a critical review of the state of affairs at WTJWorg.

The interpretations carried out by religious communities belongs to their freedom of thought and freedom of religion. This is something that JWs strongly advocate for in human rights courts. They file lawsuits if they feel threatened in their quest to freely interpret the Bible. So WTJWorg is very assertive in seeking its religious rights and freedoms.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

To clarify, you initially mentioned that churches should be able to determine how they practice theology, but now you seem to imply that the Norwegian government has the authority to interfere in that decision. In order to eliminate this confusion and properly apply your theory, consider whether it is the Watchtower or the Bible itself that prohibits homosexual acts.

That right (to punish lawbreakers*) belongs to them based on Romans, chapter 13. JWs interpret this scripture in such way.

*lawbreakers,  violators of the secular laws in particular country (not violators of laws made by WTJWorg interpretations of Bible text)

[Many Miles]

On 2/4/2024 at 2:27 PM, Juan Rivera said:

@Many Miles You’ve asked a very good question at the beginning of this thread, having to do with a litmus test or limit of obedience.  

Something along the lines of: Does the duty of submission to those taking the lead carry with it an implicit understanding that the individual must obey his conscience if a delegated authority's call for obedience conflicts with the Good News and revealed will of God?

Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8. So the Congregation is not requiring anyone to give more obedience to the those taking the lead than Paul did. The duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given; the two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other.

Just to clarify, when you say:

"Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8."

Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"?

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.

Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

[Srecko Sostar]

36 minutes ago, George88 said:

it's essential to have a deep understanding of the legal aspects, which you may not possess.

I don't run away from my ignorance. But that is also the reason why I express my opinion on a Forum, and not at a University. lol

40 minutes ago, George88 said:

Once again, who do you think you are to state that religion is incapable of interpreting scripture per God's laws? Once again, your arrogance is evident in your disregard for others.

My disagreement (and supposed activism) towards JWs is much less intense and completely free of, without fanaticism, compared to JWs stubborn claim that all other religions are false and therefore will be destroyed soon, and that the JW religion is the only true one in this world.

52 minutes ago, George88 said:

How foolish it is for a government to go to such extremes as changing its laws to justify violating the rights of certain religions! If you don't comprehend this, take a thorough look at their laws and see which specific law Norway's constitution was violated by in the case of commerce. Educate yourself before making nonsensical posts.

Funny. For decades GB has done violence to the rights of those members who wanted to have a beard. GB, as direct representatives of "Kingdom Government", violated "Bible Constitution". lol
So, every "government" is unjust. Why should we be surprised on that fact?

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Just to clarify, when you say:

"Yes. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we have a duty to hold on to what has been given. In this way we come to know what those taking the lead cannot possibly say, and if an overseer including a Governing Body member were to say “x” that would be contrary to the Good News and Faith, it should not be accepted, just as Paul teaches in Galatians 1:8."

Is your comment narrowing the subject to individuals ("an overseer" "a Governing Body member") or does it embrace the plurality of "we" used by Paul at Galatians 1:8 to mean anyone and everyone who is teaching contrary to, as you say, "what has been given"?

No. My comment is narrowing the subject to what Paul said: the ”good news”. I understand the plurality “we”  to be Paul and by extension his companions. The “whoever” in verse 9 is all encompassing.

October 2023 Broadcast:

What is the “good news”? 

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/pub-jwb-106_1_VIDEO

I said before that Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against the good news that had been originally given to them.To see whether someone was teaching a novel good news, one would compare the message in question to the teaching universally received throughout the whole Congregation. If an overseer or elder like the Judaizers or Apostle came along teaching contrary to the good news that had been taught and believed throughout the Congregation, they should not follow him because he was a heretic. The good news that Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the public and communal shared good news received by the whole Congregation that was the standard, it wasn’t limited to the letters written by the Apostles. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the good news which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid was absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re-founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching is an irrevocable foundation.

11 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.

Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it.

Paul’s main concern in the letter of Galatia is the infiltration of the Judaizers. They were preaching their Judaistic version of the Good News in Galatia. Paul got wind of their infiltration and heard of the apparent success they had in persuading the Galatians to abide by kosher laws that far exceeded the stipulations of the Jerusalem council. Paul knew that circumcision would be the next plateau they would seek to impose on the unsuspecting Galatians. Once it reached that level, the Galatians, according to Paul, would fall from the faith. His whole letter, was to stop the hemorrhaging occurring in Galatia. 

[Juan Rivera]

11 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience

I hear you. Perhaps this is what you are looking for: 

“As most any Bible student knows, there are teachings which are explicitly stated within the Bible where there is no ambiguity as to what is taught. For example: 

“There will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous.”~ (Acts 24:15)

No one can deny the explicit nature of that statement. They may debate over the implications and purpose of that resurrection, but they cannot deny the explicit element within that statement that unambiguously declares that there will be a resurrection for both the righteous and for the unrighteous.

We would surely expect the Body of Christ to teach correctly the explicit teachings and fundamental or elementary teachings of Christianity. Those elementary teachings are listed for us in the bible itself at Hebrews 6:1,2: 

“Therefore, now that we have moved beyond the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works and faith in God, the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.”

They would surely be teaching the correct identity of God, the proper view of faith, the proper view of repentance, the correct understanding of baptism, the correct understanding of the laying on of hands, the correct understanding of resurrection and everlasting judgment.

There are numerous explicit statements and teachings within the Bible that most will agree upon. Such as: Jesus Christ is the Son of God. God is Almighty. God is the Creator. Jesus Christ died and was resurrected. Jesus Christ provided the ransom for the salvation of mankind. 

Other teachings are not explicit in nature and present ambiguity to one degree or another, such as: prophecies, parables, symbolic language.

Views are ambiguous or peripheral when they are not relating to the main or most important part, such as with a computer, a peripheral would be connected to a computer but not an essential part of it. Or in other words, the main part could exist and function without it, but it is enhanced with it. The understanding of the meaning of the one word “generation” is peripheral to the main understanding of the parousia and it’s expected events and results. In other words, the teaching concerning the last days could exist without it but is enhanced with it. The same is true with other changes. The main understanding is enhanced by the adjustments, but the main part does not change. Any truth that can be solidly established via the scriptures should be regarded as essential. And please remember, that if one has a different view on a peripheral issue, it is not the view itself that causes the problem, it would be the promotion of a view against the view of the body of Christ that would constitute a division.

What about the teaching of the Faithful Slave?  This teaching is connected together with the prophecy of the parusia of Christ. So the ambiguity starts as to how we are going to understand it. There are many eschatological elements that we first have to understand in that prophecy to get an idea of who represents the faithful and discreet slave. Many believe that the entire structure of Jehovah’s Witness beliefs rest in those verses of Matthew 24:45-47. But that’s not the case.  You could remove those verses and nothing will change in the way witnesses see the authority of the Governing Body and it’s assignment.  The identification and the doctrine of an ecclesiastical authority and a teaching authority in the Congregation is there, relatively it has remained the same, hasn’t changed, regardless of how you interpret Matthew 24. The adjustments throughout the years have been peripheral about minor issues. At the end of the day, the application and correct understanding of the Faithful Slave pales in comparison when compared to the fundamental teachings in Hebrews 6:1,2. Who is the slave and when would it exist, was and is a minor point in regards to the fundamental teachings.”

It can be said that when it comes to the explicit teachings found in the Bible, the body of Christ would never find itself in contradiction of such. The body of Christ would unquestionably be led by the spirit of God and therefore would not find itself contradicting explicit Biblical statements and teachings. For instance, they would clearly never teach that Jesus Christ was not resurrected. For instance, if the Governing Body came out and stated that the scriptures are no longer considered inspired of God, that would be clear and defined stand against what the scriptures teach. That would be apostasy, and naturally any Bible believing Christian would walk away from an organization that would promote such and idea, and rightfully so. To do so would immediately disqualify them from any claim of being the body of Christ for that could not be the result of God’s spirit upon them, but rather the opposite.

Therefore, we can use the scriptures to help us to identify who would be the true body of Christ on the earth today by comparing explicit Biblical teachings with what those groups who claim to represent the body of Christ are teaching. If a group or individual contradicts explicit Biblical teachings, or even a single explicit Biblical teaching, then they could not qualify as the body of Christ, for such an error would surely not be the result of the direction of God’s spirit upon that body. True, the body may reinterpret ambiguous elements on occasion as clarity is achieved through time and or better understanding of words and phrases found in the original languages of the scriptures, (1 Cor. 13:12) but when it comes to explicit teachings, they could not be found in contradiction of such and it still be possible that they represent the true body of Christ. They would be counterfeits.”— The Body of Christ and Identity of God

~http://truetheology.net/forum-bkup/download/file.php?id=58

What if the Watchtower went into apostasy?

 https://michaeljfelker.com/2013/01/18/what-if-the-watchtower-went-into-apostasy/

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

What if the Watchtower went into apostasy?

 https://michaeljfelker.com/2013/01/18/what-if-the-watchtower-went-into-apostasy/

quote, obviously fom WTJWorg publication:

The WT is considered to be like the eyeglass that helps one understand the true teachings from God’s word. It is however, recognized as fallible. The scriptures, as far as they are translated properly, reflect the perfect word of God and the Bible is well known to be our primary textbook. It is infallible and takes full precedent in any understanding, teaching or practice. Therefore, with the Bible at the helm, your above contrived scenario is not an issue.

JWs are on a spiritual merry-go-round, or "death train", I think that's what the Amusement Park type of ride is called.
They are caught in the trap of a religious hierarchy where, in theory, according to Geoffrey Jackson, they have the right to recognize false teaching, but in reality they must not question it because they will be excommunicated as apostates.
A complete breakdown of the system in which the mental health of believers is put at risk. But that is why the established system of manipulation is very well guarded.

 

 

 

[Many Miles]

16 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Paul’s main concern in the letter of Galatia is the infiltration of the Judaizers. They were preaching their Judaistic version of the Good News in Galatia.

And what is the following if not judaization?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

In relation to the question of using human donor blood for transfusion medicine, every bit of the answer given to the question asked demands acquiescence to Judaic law since nowhere else in holy script do we find anything remotely addressing human donor blood. There is no extra-Judaic scriptural text remotely addressing human donor blood, let alone allogenic transplantation of such blood. It was Judaistic teachers Paul warned about who insisted on invoking provisions of Judaic law that no worshiper of God outside Jews had ever been held to for their worship to be accepted by God. Cornelius was no more required to bow to demands of circumcision than he was required to bow to abstain from "any sort of blood" as required under Judaic law. Cornelius need only abstain from the sort of blood God had stipulated prior to Judaic law, namely the sort of blood spelled out to Noah after the flood, which was not human donor blood.

[Pudgy]

As of todays date, there is no such thing as synthetic blood. There is COW’S blood, highly filtered, with additives, mislabeled “Artificial Human Blood”.

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

And what is the following if not judaization?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

In relation to the question of using human donor blood for transfusion medicine, every bit of the answer given to the question asked demands acquiescence to Judaic law since nowhere else in holy script do we find anything remotely addressing human donor blood. There is no extra-Judaic scriptural text remotely addressing human donor blood, let alone allogenic transplantation of such blood. It was Judaistic teachers Paul warned about who insisted on invoking provisions of Judaic law that no worshiper of God outside Jews had ever been held to for their worship to be accepted by God. Cornelius was no more required to bow to demands of circumcision than he was required to bow to abstain from "any sort of blood" as required under Judaic law. Cornelius need only abstain from the sort of blood God had stipulated prior to Judaic law, namely the sort of blood spelled out to Noah after the flood, which was not human donor blood.

It should be noted that in this article, "Reader's Questions", there are only 6 quotations from the NT, and for which, the authors of the article, defending their positions on the issue of blood, look for support in 28 quotations from the OT.
This is not an insignificant matter, because it indicates the existence of a parallel religion that is "true", which is the Jewish religion. JWs reject every religion that exists today, or has existed for these 2 thousand years, as wrong, false.
I already pointed out in a comment on another topic, that Jesus never publicly renounced his Jewish religion. He was born as a Jew and he died as a Jew. He was baptized in the Jordan, that's right, but he didn't leave his religious background. He did not go to the synagogue and announced that he was leaving the Jewish faith. He did not write a letter asking the priests to delete him from the genealogy and list of religious members. He did not tell others or ask them that they should renounce the Jewish faith in order to be baptized in water or in the spirit.

The exact opposite of this is the practice of WTJWorg, which requires proof that a candidate for baptism has manifested himself by his public rejection of his former religion.

On 2/7/2024 at 4:40 AM, Juan Rivera said:

Paul’s main concern in the letter of Galatia is the infiltration of the Judaizers.

Infiltration of Judaism? No, we can't judge it like that. Without Judaism there is no "true religion", because it is the "true religion" for all those who believe in Abraham and Jesus.

The problem arises later, in corruption. And every religion, even the "true" one, is subject to corruption and eventually becomes corrupt, whether we like it or not.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 2/5/2024 at 10:45 PM, Manuel Boyet Enicola said:

Just wondering why so much 'hatred' (sorry for lack of term; do help me here.) for the GB/JWorg.  Same thing could be said of other religious groups --- and even worse.  😁

So that you can select from this small group of faiths the one comprised of true followers of Christ. If a religious group is not hated, it is disqualified from consideration, since the Bible repeatedly says that true Christians will be hated. For example: 

If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. (John 15:19)

[Srecko Sostar]

On 2/8/2024 at 4:10 PM, George88 said:

Have any of the rejected religions truly followed Christ's teachings, as Christ intended?

Who knows Jesus' intention? Or God's intention? Who knows their thoughts?

On 2/8/2024 at 4:10 PM, George88 said:

Did Jesus accept the teachings of the Pharisees when He was baptized? Please provide a scriptural rebuttal, not just a reference to the Watchtower.

Matt 23: ² “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

According to this Jesus' words, Jewish priesthood, clergy spoke the truth and interpreted the Scriptures correctly. 

From this factual situation, can we assert that the Jewish religion is a true religion, but that it is being corrupted by religious leaders?
We could claim that this applies to every present-day religion in the same way, right? They teach everyone to be good and honest. But, as in the time of Jesus, the blame lies with the religious leaders. The conclusion is self-evident. If, by some miracle, we accept that every dogma in the WTJWorg is correct, then we are left with hypocritical religious leaders who exist in every religion, whose actions should not be imitated.

 

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

On 2/8/2024 at 4:50 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

He did not write a letter asking the priests to delete him from the genealogy and list of religious members. He did not tell others or ask them that they should renounce the Jewish faith in order to be baptized in water or in the spirit.

Judaism was the true religion during Jesus' times. But most Jews did not accept Jesus as the prophesied messiah; hence, the whole nation was rejected by God and replaced with Christianity. This 'new' religion is still based on Judaism sans observance to the Mosaic law. The additional belief is faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice. Ergo, no resignation letter needed.... 😁